Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:16:12AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
I'm wondering, whether each tree should be fixed to a certain branch.
I'm wondering why you talk about branches at all.
No
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:06:54AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
I think fork is as good as anything for describing the operation. I had
thought about clone because it seemed to fill the role
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:17:00AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:47:55AM CEST, I got a letter
where Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:07:35AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
Actually, what about if git pull outside of repository did what git
clone does now? I'd kinda like clone instead of fork too.
This seems like the best solution to me,
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:17:00AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:47:55AM CEST, I got a letter
where Petr
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
I'm wondering, whether each tree should be fixed to a certain branch.
I'm wondering why you talk about branches at all.
No such thing should exist. There are no branches. There are just
repositories. You can track somebody elses repository, but you
6 matches
Mail list logo
